As keeping horses has become increasingly pricey, the amount competitors pay for showing on top of that has developed as a major economic issue. There is a tendency to blame the shows for over-charging, intimating that competitions are making huge profits off the exhibitors. But such accusations generally come from people who have no idea what it takes, or costs, to put on a show. They have no idea of the profit margin (if there is one) realized by competitions, particularly the smaller shows serving the all-important base of the sport.
Without a base, nothing can be built. If equestrian competition is seen as being only about the elite upper levels, that can hurt more than the sport’s image in the era of social license to operate. Such a perception also can discourage those who feel showing — viewed as a goal after all those lessons — is out of their price range. As a result, they may not continue to ride and go elsewhere for their exercise.
What does it cost to put on a horse show? Marnye Langer, who runs the Langer Equestrian Group shows in California, has produced a piece explaining the business model. Here is an edited version of what she wrote:
Horse shows are extraordinarily expensive to produce, even before a single ribbon is handed out. That is something many exhibitors – and increasingly, policymakers – fail to fully appreciate.
The public conversation around the U.S. Equestrian Federation channel system and the future of competition often assumes there is a large amount of fat built into horse show pricing. The reality is quite the opposite, especially for smaller shows. Margins are frequently thin, costs are largely fixed and many of the expenses exhibitors dislike most are not profit centers at all. They are simply mechanisms to cover operational necessities or pass through costs collected on behalf of associations.
Take staffing: A horse show requires an enormous workforce to function safely and professionally. Labor costs extend far beyond judges and course designers. They include office personnel, ring crews, maintenance teams, jump crews, in-gate staff, parking attendants, hospitality workers, and security. Those positions exist whether the show runs three days or five, three rings or five.
And importantly, these are not optional expenses.
A hunter/jumper competition cannot simply decide to eliminate EMT coverage, forego insurance or skip licensed officials because entries are down. Most of the core operating costs remain fixed regardless of the competition’s size or designation.
The same applies to venue costs. Facility rental, footing preparation, utilities, manure removal, tents, stalls, generators and equipment rentals represent substantial line items that do not meaningfully decline simply because a show is categorized differently under a channel framework. In many cases, regional competitions actually face higher proportional costs because they lack the economies of scale available to larger circuits.
Even when a horse show operates at a facility under the same ownership structure, the venue itself is not free. Someone still pays for footing maintenance, equipment, utilities, staffing, insurance, paving, landscaping, manure removal and ongoing repairs. This is also true for farms that host smaller local competitions. Rest assured, they have invested substantial money into making those properties functional for horse shows.
This is an important point because there is a persistent assumption that facility-owning show managers somehow operate without meaningful overhead. They do not. In many cases, horse show revenue is what keeps the facility itself financially viable.
Another uncomfortable truth: Ancillary revenues matter tremendously.
Exhibitors often view feed, shavings, office fees, nomination fees and sponsorship programs as excessive add-ons. In reality, those categories frequently determine whether a competition survives financially. Particularly for smaller and mid-level competitions, sponsorship revenue is limited or nonexistent. That means operational sustainability falls heavily on entries, stalls and associated exhibitor fees.
And even then, profitability is far from guaranteed. Weather disruptions, lower-than-expected entries, rising insurance costs, labor shortages, fuel prices and facility fee increases can erase margins quickly. A competition that appears “busy” from the outside is not necessarily financially successful.
This is why the assumption that (regional) Channel 2 competitions automatically create a lower-cost environment is so problematic.
The USEF channel system largely adjusts classification and prize money requirements. It does not materially reduce the overwhelming majority of production expenses that drive horse show economics. All the “things” still have to happen. Judges, course designers and EMTs still need to be hired. Rings still need dragging. Footing still needs maintenance. Insurance premiums do not suddenly shrink because a show is labeled “regional.” The list goes on.
If anything, smaller competitions often face a more difficult economic equation. They have fewer entries over which to spread fixed costs, less sponsorship support and less leverage when competing for labor and vendors against major circuits.
That reality matters because regional and mid-level horse shows are foundational to the sport’s ecosystem. They are where riders develop, trainers build businesses and new participants enter the industry. If those competitions become financially unsustainable, the long-term impact extends far beyond a single horse show’s balance sheet.
The concern is not simply whether some shows will disappear. It is whether the sport can maintain a healthy competitive middle class at all. Because once regional competitions vanish, rebuilding that layer of the industry becomes extraordinarily difficult.
